Order 1. The delay of 39 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. 2. However, we have heard the parties on merit. 3. It appears that the petitioner-appellant has preferred the writ petition in the year 2003 in a matter where the respondent-petitioner's property was acquired under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 by the order dated 8.7.1980 and when after acquiring the land in question the State• Government started the construction of the jail for juvenile (Bal Sudhar Griha). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted. that the learned Single Judge has considered the facts and observed that so far the construction of Bal Sudhar Griha over the land in question is concerned that has already been completed, for which stay was sought by the appellant-writ petitioner. However, for disposal of the application under Section 20 of the 1976 Act is concerned, the petitioner-appellant itself submitted that the same matter is pending before the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Government of Jharkhand for disposal. 5. In view of the above fact, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with the liberty to the petitioner appellant to pursue the matter before the Respondent No.2, the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Government of Jharkhand and said authority was directed to consider and dispose of the said application which was pending before him which may have been filed by the appellant-petitioner if already has not been disposed of. 6. by filing the L.P.A., the counsel for the appellant-petitioner has submitted that though the construction of the Sal Sudhar Griha was completed but it was completed during the pendency of the writ petition and it was also not in dispute at the relevant time. 7. However, we found from the record that impugned order was passed on 8.7.1980 by the competent authority, the issue of any exemption under Section 20 of 1976 Act was duly considered by a reasoned order and that exemption was denied for the rest of the land except for the land measuring 1000 Sq. Mtrs and the competent authority directed for the publication of the notification for rest of the land i.e. 35414 Sq. Mtrs. 8. It may be true that the appellant petitioner was not a party in the proceeding wherein the order of 1980 was passed and admittedly appellant was not necessary party. Mtrs and the competent authority directed for the publication of the notification for rest of the land i.e. 35414 Sq. Mtrs. 8. It may be true that the appellant petitioner was not a party in the proceeding wherein the order of 1980 was passed and admittedly appellant was not necessary party. However, according to the appellant-petitioner itself, they moved another application under Section 20 of the Act, 1976 and they shown their willingness to pursue that remedy. If appellant's said application has been dismissed then remedy was to challenge that order of dismissal but the appellant cannot get any relief in this L.PA 9. In view of the above reasons, until and unless the appellant would get o the' exemption under Section 20 of the Act, 1976, the appellant could °not have claimed any relief against the State with respect to the raising of the 'construction on the land in dispute by filing the writ petition in the year 2003. 10. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition with the liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy if it was available under Section 20 of the Act, 1976 to the appellant. 11. We do not find any merit in the present L.P.A., which is accordingly dismissed.